Gorsuch “stated very emotionally and strongly his belief in his fellow judges’ integrity and the principle of judicial independence,” he added. “And I made clear to him that that belief requires him to be stronger and more explicit, more public in his views.”

Gorsuch’s comments to Blumenthal were confirmed by Ron Bonjean, a member of the judge’s group of aides tasked with helping him navigate the confirmation process.

I don't recall WAPO highlighting such concerns over the judiciary's feelings when Obama called them out in the SOTU. I find it amusing when people who start wars complain that the other side is firing back.

Ah, good to see you're blogging this. I'm sure Trump will be itching to trash talk Gorsuch on Twitter, but maybe someone will monitor Trump's tweeter use for the next few days. Good for Gorsuch, glad to see someone who recognizes the need to honor the three branches of government, despite the possibility of incurring Trump's wrath.

SCOTUS justices have a job: interpret the Constitution. They are not part of the legislative and executive branches. As a separate entity they should not be influenced by the other entities.

What really impressed me about Gorsuch is his statement that judges who think about the consequences of their decisions are not doing their jobs. Their jobs are to interpret the law. With SCOTUS it is the unfashionable idea of interpreting the Constitution.

Rick said...I don't recall WAPO highlighting such concerns over the judiciary's feelings when Obama called them out in the SOTU. I find it amusing when people who start wars complain that the other side is firing back.

Haha! Actually, the Washington Post DID do a story -- more than one, actually -- about the very unusual extent to which Obama chose to criticize the Roberts Court:

I have to concur on the issue of the Citizens United SC attack showing the hypocrisy of many of the current critics of Trump's criticism.

I do STRONGLY believe in the independence of the judicial branch of the government. I just find it odd that these concerns are only raised when the left finds them injurious to their close-to-the-heart issues.

I didn't hear these protests when President Obama released this statement:Our democracy works best when everyone’s voice is heard, and no one’s voice is drowned out. But five years ago, a Supreme Court ruling allowed big companies – including foreign corporations – to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence our elections. The Citizens United decision was wrong, and it has caused real harm to our democracy. With each new campaign season, this dark money floods our airwaves with more and more political ads that pull our politics into the gutter. It’s time to reverse this trend. Rather than bolster the power of lobbyists and special interests, Washington should lift up the voices of ordinary Americans and protect their democratic right to determine the direction of the country that we love.

And then there was the radio address in 2010, followed by the SOTU callout.

I believed then that the president had the right to criticize a decision and talk about mitigating what he believed were the harmful impacts. And I at least am consistent - I believe that the president still has that right.

People like Pelosi, now - sometimes they say the Supreme Court is God and sometimes that it's the Devil Incarnate. That I find nonsensical.

It's the job of the legislature to talk about and sometimes legislatively address impacts of various judicial decisions, and therefore it must sometimes be the president's job to do so. IMO, judicial independence is not impaired by either legislative or presidential criticism.

Democrats better stop running to the cameras to publicly disclose confidential statements made in a private meeting with them. Gorsuch might refuse to meet with them altogether if Democrats are going to so grossly violate all concept of confidentiality for crass political purposes by publicly disclosing his private comments made in a private conversation.

I know if I was Gorsuch I would say that this is the end of any private meetings -- which are only a courtesy in any case -- with Democrats.

Unclear if Blumenthal broke a promise of confidentiality here. He is a snake so it's very possible. If Gorsuch is smart he will not t complain but will perhaps not repeat or expand on his remark: once is enough.

If Trump is smart he will ignore both the remark (although it would be nice if he lightened up on the tweet wars for now). He gets nothing out of picking on Gorsuch for saying a fair and decent thing. Let's get on with the confirmation. Maybe Gorsuch's remark will make it a little harder for the Dems to vote against such a reasonable and independent man.

What I worry about is the Dems now trying to turn Gorsuch into a stick with which to beat Trump, asking him "Don't you agree that the President is a jackass and should not criticize the judiciary ever at all?"

Andrew Jackson famously said that he should have shot Henry Clay and hung John C. Calhoun. Not much respect for the Senate shown there. Will Trump top that? He has Jackson's portrait in the Oval Office.

Uh, oh. Gorsuch has all along been for Judicial Veto of Presidential Powers that are not pleasing to the Philosopher King Justices. That is what we were warned about him. He wants to be the swing man who Governs the USA one 5/4 opinion at a time.

No Nuclear option for this last of the Independents. The Dems should vote him in as their own man.

lol. Looking at some of the comments. God, I hope this story -- which will only help get Gorsuch confirmed -- drives TrumpLand crazy. Wait; "crazy" was accomplished a long time ago. What comes after crazy?

Chuck said..."lol. Looking at some of the comments. God, I hope this story -- which will only help get Gorsuch confirmed -- drives TrumpLand crazy. Wait; "crazy" was accomplished a long time ago. What comes after crazy?"

If my symptoms are any indication, the final descent into ultimate insanity is characterized by the conviction that the man you voted for in the last Presidential election won a majority of the electoral college and has been sworn in as President of the United States. It's a comfortable sort of madness, I must say.

Chuck said...[Rick said...I don't recall WAPO highlighting such concerns over the judiciary's feelings when Obama called them out in the SOTU. I find it amusing when people who start wars complain that the other side is firing back.]

Haha! Actually, the Washington Post DID do a story

Apparently Chuck can't figure out the difference between criticism and an apologia.

In reality, though, it is unlikely that any of Obama’s statements on the court or its decisions — the longest of which clocked in at just over three minutes — had much impact on the court’s decision in the most recent Obamacare case.

“I don’t think it does anything,” said Charles Fried, a Harvard Law School professor who served as Ronald Reagan’s solicitor general.

Wait, criticism doesn't do anything? I don't think he read his own link.

Jupiter: If my symptoms are any indication, the final descent into ultimate insanity is characterized by the conviction that the man you voted for in the last Presidential election won a majority of the electoral college and has been sworn in as President of the United States. It's a comfortable sort of madness, I must say.

Chuck is convinced that the election was a resounding validation of GOPery-cuckery and a resounding repudiation of Trump. And he had convinced himself of this within 5 minutes of the election being called. Everything he writes flows from this daft but unshakeable conviction.

Chuck said..."His answers will no doubt be reasonable, and therefore a tremendous disappointment to Trumpkins in working class bars all over America."

Working class bars? Really?

Is THAT what a 'Real Republican' is? Someone who disdains the people getting by paycheck to paycheck but may have voted Republican in the past, anyway -- even for rich 'real' Republicans like Romney -- believing there were some shared values besides personal wealth?

Without knowing Chuck's Secret Republican Handshake, the Joke was on them all along!

Suckers! The 'Chucks' only pretend to like you as long as you fellate their status quo. And they DO expect you to swallow.

C'mon People: tickle Chuck's balls! TICKLE CHUCK'S BALLS!

His Status Quo is getting flaccid. And you know when his Status Quo can't get hard it is THE FAULT OF YOU FUCKERS WHO WON'T LISTEN TO HIM!

He is An Important Man! Who Comments On a Blog! Respect!

Chuck's Secret Republican Handshake: shake hands with Those Who Know Better, until the swollen prostate causes you to Pee A Little....

Trump should think seriously about withdrawing the nomination. Not because he can't take criticism, but because this episode may be telling us that Gorsuch doesn't have much of a spine. When you're asked to criticize the President who just nominated you, you decline to do so. That doesn't mean you have to defend him, you just say "No comment." Really, nobody is going to be surprised or offended if you do that, even in private conversation. It's simple rectitude. Supposed to be part of the fabled "judicial temperment".

The idea that Gorsuch or any other sentient being who's spent a bit of time observing courts thinks that all judges are paragons of independence and integrity is laughable. Some of them are, but some are not.

It may be that Gorsuch is trying to make nice with the Democrats in hopes of speeding his confirmation, but that's a bad mistake. This is only going to encourage, not diminish, the opposition.

The right attitude to take in these meetings is to be calm, friendly and straightforward. If you're asked what you think about legal issues, you explain what you think and why, subject to the limitation that you can't discuss cases you may have to rule on. You sell yourself. But you don't criticize other people, especially the guy who nominated you. The other eight Justices were just put on notice that the potential new guy doesn't mind backstabbing in a good cause.

Jeff said...Trump should think seriously about withdrawing the nomination. Not because he can't take criticism, but because this episode may be telling us that Gorsuch doesn't have much of a spine. When you're asked to criticize the President who just nominated you, you decline to do so. That doesn't mean you have to defend him, you just say "No comment." Really, nobody is going to be surprised or offended if you do that, even in private conversation. It's simple rectitude. Supposed to be part of the fabled "judicial temperment".

The idea that Gorsuch or any other sentient being who's spent a bit of time observing courts thinks that all judges are paragons of independence and integrity is laughable. Some of them are, but some are not.

It may be that Gorsuch is trying to make nice with the Democrats in hopes of speeding his confirmation, but that's a bad mistake. This is only going to encourage, not diminish, the opposition.

The right attitude to take in these meetings is to be calm, friendly and straightforward. If you're asked what you think about legal issues, you explain what you think and why, subject to the limitation that you can't discuss cases you may have to rule on. You sell yourself. But you don't criticize other people, especially the guy who nominated you. The other eight Justices were just put on notice that the potential new guy doesn't mind backstabbing in a good cause.

Oh, this is such a beautiful freakout! Withdraw the Gorsuch nomination! Forget about the Trumpdom fawning over the selection of Gorsuch. Withdraw him now; he had the nerve to disagree with one of Trump's countless disagreeable assertions!

I cannot thank you enough for this post, and the pleasure it has given me.

Get ready, by the way, for the Gorsuch confirmation. Like the DeVos confirmation and the Sessions confirmation. The last 24 hours have made me so incredibly happy.

Chuck: Oh, this is such a beautiful freakout! Withdraw the Gorsuch nomination! Forget about the Trumpdom [=Jeff] fawning over the selection of Gorsuch. Withdraw him now; he had the nerve to disagree with one of Trump's countless disagreeable assertions!

I cannot thank you enough for this post, and the pleasure it has given me.

Get ready, by the way, for the Gorsuch confirmation. Like the DeVos confirmation and the Sessions confirmation. The last 24 hours have made me so incredibly happy.

These confirmations are really showing those Trumpkins! Indeed, the Senate looks set to totally stick it to Trump by confirming all his nominations!

Blumenthal is on MSNBC tonight. It is so rich. Blumenthal confirmed, again, the story that has already been reported.

Blumenthal seemed most angry about the fact that Gorsuch said he would not go public with additional statements condemning Trump's remarks about the judiciary. Blumenthal says that he asked Gorsuch to do it, and that he told Gorsuch that it was essential that he do so.

Then -- this was interesting -- Blumenthal was asked if his vote on Gorsuch might depend on Gorsuch's being forthcoming about condemnations of Trump's anti-judiciary comments. And Blumenthal said absolutely that it would! That's a crazy-cool notion; that Gorsuch could actually win Blumenthal's vote, with a full-throated condemnation of Trump in the course of a confirmation hearing.

That is going to have to be asked of Blumenthal in the coming days; what Gorsuch could do, to win Blumenthal's vote.

I came across this: "Is Gorsuch a secret liberal?" http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-judiciary/318565-could-court-pick-gorsuch-be-a-crypto-liberal-conservativesIn reading this he seems honest, and I've read before that he realizes judges have to sometimes make a decision against their own belief or what they perceive as justice. Rule of law prevails. "Judge Gorsuch does not fit the mold of a rock-ribbed conservative. He is a smart, free-thinking, literary, independent who will be a good, and unpredictable justice. In some cases he will be liberal, some libertarian and in others conservative. But he is a fair man with a good sense of justice, just what we need on the Supreme Court." I find him interesting, much like Roberts.

"a 'Real Republican' is... [s]omeone who disdains the people getting by paycheck to paycheck but may have voted Republican in the past... believing there were some shared values besides personal wealth"

Angel-Dyne: "These confirmations are really showing those Trumpkins! Indeed, the Senate looks set to totally stick it to Trump by confirming all his nominations"

Shhhhh.

"lifelong republican" Chuck is already dealing with quite a lot since no one in Michigan listens to him and the entire edifice of his carefully constructed "knowledgeable republican insider" construct has collapsed.

He has been reduced to piggy-backing onto every lefty meme in order to try and regain what little, if any, credibility he once had.

Angel-Dyne said......These confirmations are really showing those Trumpkins! Indeed, the Senate looks set to totally stick it to Trump by confirming all his nominations!Just how much have you had to drink tonight, Chuck?

You don't get it. What I have said all along, was that the "blunt instrument"* of Donald Trump was useful, for a few things. Betsy DeVos at Education, Jeff Sessions at Justice, a true Scalia replacement, and about 40 or 50 new Circuit Court of Appeals Judges all handpicked by the Federalist Society.

I never said that the Senate would be sticking it to Trump. I said that Trump had a very narrow majority in the Senate, and that Trump would need to suck up to Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Ted Cruz, Mitch McConnell and Susan Collins. I suppose I should have added Lisa Murkowski. (I never knew about the NEA-Alaska hooks in Murkowski.) Because the loss of any 2 or 3 of them would be trouble for Trump's legislative agenda.

*Steve Bannon is the guy who wisely called Donald Trump a "blunt instrument."

Drago, I'm curious why that premise exists? I often wondered why so many artists, musicians, writers, creative folks, are liberal. Why is that? And that particular premise says "smart, free-thinking, literary, independent" I think artist. But I do get your point. It's implying that conservatives are not "smart, free-thinking, literary, independent". Why is that? And why aren't there more conservative artist types? I discussed this with my husband the other day and the only thing we could come up with is that these are non-traditional careers, and that conservatives don't encourage it. I really don't know. I'm an artist and I have always been liberal leaning like it's in my bones.

Well, it's the 'artists' who are promoting that premise. But are they really more "smart, free-thinking, literary, independent" than the population as a whole? I thought so when I was younger. As I've aged, though, I've realized that 'artists' aren't those things any more than anybody else, they're just.... artists.

Lots of supposed conservatives turn out not to be once they arrive in DC. on paper Gorsuch looks very good. but he wouldn't be the first guy to 'grow' in the job. John 'I saved Obamacare! Twice!' Roberts was supposed to be a conservative but wimped out the one time when it really mattered.

@SandiC and @Mark: Consider the possiblity Gorsuch's comments were orchestrated. His "disheartened" comments only help to give leftists cover, to wit: along the lines of "I am my own man" and Trump's views are not my de facto beliefs? How better to appeal to leftists, some might wonder.

"that judges who think about the consequences of their decisions are not doing their jobs" Take that, Posner.

Anyway, looks like Gorsuch ain't no Bork. Which is good. But he'd better not suck up to Dems too much. Won't make any difference in any case.

Of course, Blumenthal confirms, as if confirmation were needed, that the Dems approach SC nominees strictly as political appointees, to be judged by the likely results they produce and nothing else, law be damned. So-called law is just a tool to achieve power and to slap the populace into submission. Here and there some ex-law profs on the sidelines will invent cool rationalizations ("The 14th entails substantive due process which always prevented states from outlawing SSM," that sort of thing), but no one in the arena is fooled.

Paco Wové said..."Well, it's the 'artists' who are promoting that premise."

Are they? I've always found myself drawn to liberal ideas, even when I was brought into the born-again world in the late 70s. My sister and brother-in-law got me involved, I was young, about 13, and I thought it was the end of the world, they were trying to convince me and I was scared but they assured me Jesus was coming! Then I started to really think about life, all on my own, and nothing the born again church said made sense to me. And I ended up an atheist by the age of 15-16, somewhere around there. It wasn't the media. It wasn't other artists. It was me. Discovering who I am and what I really believe. So I wonder if creative types are just wired differently. What do you think?

Lots of supposed conservatives turn out not to be once they arrive in DC. on paper Gorsuch looks very good. but he wouldn't be the first guy to 'grow' in the job. John 'I saved Obamacare! Twice!' Roberts was supposed to be a conservative but wimped out the one time when it really mattered.

That's funny. Chuck Schumer was on tv tonight, citing Chief Justice Roberts as someone who fooled much of the Senate into thinking he was a moderate during confirmation, when in fact Roberts' decisions in Citizens United and Shelby County v Holder later showed him to be a hard-right ideologue.

This statement is far too broad with too many embedded implications to be engaged directly.

It would take far too long and would require a depth of knowledge I lack to address it comprehensively and coherently.

I would suggest that this conversation would need to begin by examining each era by geography and culture to understand precisely what was occurring, what was being produced, by whom and for what purposes and try to understand the value that those cultures placed on those creations.

I suspect that what motivates and drives a modern day US based screenwriter who specializes in 30 minute TV sitcoms (and is considered quite "creative") would be radically different than what motivated an accomplished and "creative" Renaissance artist who specialized in frescos depicting biblical teachings or a porcelain artist in the first century AD in China.

We should also ask ourselves what cultural pressures might exist today, if any, that might keep a "conservative" from pursuing some form of art for arts sake?

Mary, we should also cast our examination net wide enough to understand how other endeavors are valued or not valued as "creative".

For instance, is a theoretical mathematician "creative"? A particle physicist?

Is someone who can look at a series of mathematical equations and develop a multi-dimensional image in their mind so clearly that they are able to develop an entire arena of academic study also "creative"? If so, how do we work them in to this discussion?

Tougher question: would a German rocket scientist, working under a Nazi regime, and developing breakthrough technologies be considered "liberal" or "conservative"? On what basis?

"lifelong republican" Chuck: "That's funny. Chuck Schumer was on tv tonight, citing Chief Justice Roberts as someone who fooled much of the Senate into thinking he was a moderate during confirmation, when in fact Roberts' decisions in Citizens United and Shelby County v Holder later showed him to be a hard-right ideologue."

Drago: "We should also ask ourselves what cultural pressures might exist today, if any, that might keep a "conservative" from pursuing some form of art for arts sake?"This is a great question. Seriously, WTF? Is this about expression itself? about the type of expression? or the lack of expression in an artistic medium? Does the medium matter? But I can say from personal experience, art was not a place for the born again church, it was not a place for individual thought, just the opposite of that, very much collective thought. I know what you're trying to get at here with mass media. But same can be said with mass christianity. People should be able to go down there own roads, I really believe this, this is who I am. I won't let go of my road.

Drago said..."lifelong republican" Chuck: "That's funny. Chuck Schumer was on tv tonight, citing Chief Justice Roberts as someone who fooled much of the Senate into thinking he was a moderate during confirmation, when in fact Roberts' decisions in Citizens United and Shelby County v Holder later showed him to be a hard-right ideologue."

Schumer is full of crap. Completely.

Most "lifelong republicans" understand that.

I didn't cite Schumer to rely on him, for any merits. I mentioned Schumer, as a bookend to the likes of you. Schumer thinks that Roberts is a fringe rightwing extremist. While the TrumpBaggers think that Roberts is traitor to the right. Flip sides of the same delusional coin.

Mary says " People should be able to go down there own roads, I really believe this, this is who I am. I won't let go of my road. " At its essence this is Trump the man. He is what we see and hear, not a lying bone in his body, it takes too much effort to maintain. Once someone, something, some action fits like a key into a lock, he is on automatic. He doesn't really think the press lies, it's their nature and he'll call them on its appearance every time that key fits that lock. If it doesn't fit he calls it like it is. This is why he has no patience with so called fact checkers. If they, you could look inside my head at the time I was speaking, then you could say something like "I didn't believe what I was saying" else, sit down because you're wasting my time. To his aide "don't let him in here anymore, he can't sit at the captain's table until I tell you different." "nobody has special rights around me, who died and left you boss of me?" "oh, I'm unpopopular, let's see what I can do about that, the ultimate poll on my popularity is in 2018, And if I can't be myself, I don't give a Sd@mn.

Trump's honest on this is refreshing. I am literally fucking sick and tired of all this bullshit about how the judiciary is above politics. Everyone knows it, and yet they continue to parrot this bullshit over and over and over. They are all basically a bunch of sickening hypocrites.

Harry Blackmun at his hearing said that he wanted to "protect the little people."

Oops!

Anthony Kennedy was confirmed 97-0. "They all love me! It's unanimous! I'm the greatest! And I don't even have a jurisprudence, I just say whatever the fuck I want to! Mr. Moderate! Mr. Middle of the Road! I speak for America. No, wait. I speak for the universe!"

Now he's the Baby Killing Catholic and people don't want to eat next to him in the cafeteria. Souter's like, "Fuck this, I'm retiring early."

Instead of trying to please fucking everybody, could one Senator ask this guy if he knows what a "person" is? Because I think the question might come up, sooner or later. Ask the fucking question, and if he doesn't know or won't say, reject his ass.

Chuck, sure Roberts has been right in many other cases, but those pale in importance next to Obamacare. Healthcare is one sixth of the economy and goig up, and Roberts consented to a path that leads to ever greater control over it by the socialists and the crony capitalists, who are often the same people.

As an actual combat veteran who served, several times, in an actual war, it's very disheartening and demoralizing to know that a lying fake like Blumenthal hasn't been stricken with a particularly painful form of ass cancer.

Mary: Then I started to really think about life, all on my own, and nothing the born again church said made sense to me. And I ended up an atheist by the age of 15-16, somewhere around there. It wasn't the media. It wasn't other artists. It was me. Discovering who I am and what I really believe. So I wonder if creative types are just wired differently. What do you think?

What does any of this have to do with being "creative"?

In a Western country, there's nothing at all unusual about growing up, looking around, thinking things through, and rejecting some or all of your parents' or local community's ideas. Millions of adolescents who grow up to be accountants, doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc. do exactly that. Maybe the "difference in wiring" is in how you interpret this very common experience, and what place you give it in the "narrative" that we all spin about our own lives.

I am returning to this comments page late, after President Trump has now come out and called Senator Blumenthal a liar for having been the source of this story.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-trump-idUSKBN15O1K4?il=0

This one won't go away. In the very near future, Judge Gorsuch is going to be sitting in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which Senator Blumenthal sits. We can all rest assured that Senator Blumenthal will be asking Gorsuch about this. Gorsuch will not only be answering in public and on the record, but also under oath.

I see that some have commented above, that they think it was actually some tactical brilliance on the part of Trump, to have Gorsuch take a stance that Senate Dems might like. Uh, okay; then what about calling Senator Blumenthal a liar in connection with that very same story?

So this one is gonna leave a mark. I am going to file this away in short-term memory because it is going to come back on Trump, and relatively soon. Thing is, I expect that Judge Gorsuch will again confirm the story as reported, and that Blumenthal will be vindicated, and Trump will again be shown to be a liar, with the net effect that Gorsuch will win his Senate vote, Democrats will believe themselves to have scored some anti-Trump points, and Trump loyalists will not care at all about a Trump lie from a couple of weeks ago. Because so much will have happened in the intervening days. And there are so many Trump lies that come out of the "mainstream media," which can never be trusted.